All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Fiver]

And just getting back to your numerous factual errors about Lechmere and Bucks Row. You claim Lechmere didn't have 6 addresses.

I made no claim about how many addresses Lechmere had. Did you even read what I wrote?

In Post #14 you claimed "As a child he lived at 6 different addresses".

Also in Post #14 you claimed "He lived in Whitechapel all his life. 5 different addresses."

In Post #25 I pointed out those two claims of yours contradict each other. "As a child he lived at 6 different addresses." and "He lived in Whitechapel all his life. 5 different addresses" cannot both be true.

It turns out both of your claims are false.

Your claim that "He lived in Whitechapel all his life" is false. The 1851 Census shows Charles Lechmere was living in Herefordshire.

Unlucky you we have the census. Here are his addresses.

1858 Holloway Street

1859 Sion Square

1861 Thomas Street

1871 Mary Ann Street

1881 James Street

June 1888 Moved to Doveton Street

1890 22 Doveton Street

Lucky me - the historical records that you list prove that you are wrong.

You claimed "As a child he lived at 6 different addresses". Charles Lechmere was not a child in 1881.

I could go through your post point by point but there's no value in that. If you have no knowledge about the basic facts then it serves no purpose. Lechmere is Jack the Ripper, it's been handed to Ripperology on a plate, and you still can't see it. You can lead a horse to water.

Your own sources have proved you wrong, so it's rather early for you to declare victory.

[Fiver]

Exactly my point. Thank you. When Lechmere was there she had just been attacked and might have breathing her last breath. This places Lechmere there right at the time of death. Which of course makes him the murderer.

Did you even read what I wrote?

In the OP you claimed "Lechmere is found standing near Polly Nichols freshly killed body down a dark street at 03.45 in the morning - she has clearly just been killed."

Robert Paul disagrees strongly with your claim. He thought thought Nichols she was alive.

"He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint." - Robert Paul Inquest testimony

Polly Nichols probably had just been killed - but that was not clear to Robeert Paul. Claiming that "she has clearly just been killed." is ignoring the evidence.

[MrBarnett]

Exactly my point. Thank you. When Lechmere was there she had just been attacked and might have breathing her last breath. This places Lechmere there right at the time of death. Which of course makes him the murderer.

And just getting back to your numerous factual errors about Lechmere and Bucks Row. You claim Lechmere didn’t have 6 addresses. Unlucky you we have the census. Here are his addresses.

1858 Holloway Street

1859 Sion Square

1861 Thomas Street

1871 Mary Ann Street

1881 James Street

June 1888 Moved to Doveton Street

1890 22 Doveton Street


I could go through your post point by point but there’s no value in that. If you have no knowledge about the basic facts then it serves no purpose.
Lechmere is Jack the Ripper, it’s been handed to Ripperology on a plate, and you still can’t see it. You can lead a horse to water…

And he was still living at 20, James Street immediately before he moved to Doveton Street, I believe. That move would have been a significant upheaval for him.

[SuperShodan]

Robert Paul thought she was alive.

"He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint." - Robert Paul Inquest testimony

Exactly my point. Thank you. When Lechmere was there she had just been attacked and might have breathing her last breath. This places Lechmere there right at the time of death. Which of course makes him the murderer.

And just getting back to your numerous factual errors about Lechmere and Bucks Row. You claim Lechmere didn’t have 6 addresses. Unlucky you we have the census. Here are his addresses.

1858 Holloway Street

1859 Sion Square

1861 Thomas Street

1871 Mary Ann Street

1881 James Street

June 1888 Moved to Doveton Street

1890 22 Doveton Street


I could go through your post point by point but there’s no value in that. If you have no knowledge about the basic facts then it serves no purpose.
Lechmere is Jack the Ripper, it’s been handed to Ripperology on a plate, and you still can’t see it. You can lead a horse to water…

[Fiver]

Lechmere is found standing near Polly Nichols freshly killed body down a dark street at 03.45 in the morning - she has clearly just been killed.

Robert Paul thought she was alive.

"He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint." - Robert Paul Inquest testimony

[Fiver]

I could go through your whole post but there are so many mistakes I don’t know where to start.
So I'll pick 2 from the bottom.

"Post offense behavior would include returning to an area where he could wash his hands of blood and remove his clothing." - this does not match Charles Lechmere.

This is so utterly wrong. A monkey with a crayon could do better. Lechmere went to Pickford's after the attacks. They had a large area for workmen to wash down their equipment and themselves.

"Post offense behavior would include returning to an area where he could wash his hands of blood and remove his clothing."

Pickford's had an area for washing up after work. It did not have the privacy needed for washing off blood and changing clothes undetected. It would not have a spare change of clothes for Lechmere. Or a place to secretly dispose of bloodstained and besodden clothing. Showing up for work besplattered in blood would have raised the eyebrows of every coworker that saw Lechmere.

"would visit the gravesites of the victims during the early morning hours." - this does not match Charles Lechmere. he would have been at work.

You have absolutely no idea whether he would visit the gravestones or not. You can't possibly say that. It's just silly. How could you even guess what he did in his free time. Unbelievable.

Clearly you did not read what I posted. I did not guess at what Lechmere did in his free times. "The early morning hours" were not free time for Charles Lechmere.

The profile said the killer "would visit the gravesites of the victims during the early morning hours". As I said before, this does not match Charles Lechmere. he would have been at work during the early morning hours.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

I know you were asking RJ, but from my point of view Lechmere is a person of interest, but the lack of any direct evidence and the questions that remain unanswered, do push him down the suspect list.

fair enough. hes not my favorite either but hes in my top tier.
and as ive said alot-all the suspects are week, some just less weak than others.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Only two of the murder sites are on Lechmere's supposed route to work - Nichols and Chapman. Chapman was killed while Lechmere would have been at work, the killer spent too much time at Miller's Court to be on a detour on his way to work. What did the killer do with the organs if he was on his journey to work? All areas where we can speculate but all questions which are a challenge for the Lechmere theory and questions his guilt. Then of course there are Stride and Eddowes, killed in a different area altogether. Could he have been visiting his mother? Possibly but no evidence he did.

The route that we think Lechmere took was one taken by many men going to work, so any of them could be the killer by that argument, the only thing that singles Lechmere out is that he discovered the body - not an insubstantial reason to consider him, but not a smoking gun either.

I see what your saying Eten, but i think i didnt get my point across. look forget he killed on his way to work. I dont necessarily agree with fish on that. My biggest deal against lech(more initially-now not as much) is that according to fish he killed on his way to work. I think if he was the ripper-these might have been days he actually had off or was coming home from work. or maybe he was killing on his way to work and had a stash there. who knows and i dont really care about that.

All im saying is his route to work puts him in very close vicinity to the murder sites (and stride/double event near his moms) and near where these women were when they were alive. its more than we have in this matter than for most if not all the other suspects. SPECIFIC LOCATIONS. thats gotta count for something.

[AlanG]

Is lech really that bad of a suspect? really??

Depends who you speak to I suppose...

If Lechmere were the suspect, how do you account for the blood some 20 to 30 ft from the body in Bucks Row by the side of the road as reported in the Star at the time? All I have read say Lechmere was close to the body, when Paul arrived? The Star reported the blood was off the killer as they fled the area. Obviously its a newspaper account, but it is also evidence to suggest he isn't the killer?

[etenguy]

Is lech really that bad of a suspect? really??

Hi Abby

I know you were asking RJ, but from my point of view Lechmere is a person of interest, but the lack of any direct evidence and the questions that remain unanswered, do push him down the suspect list.

[Fiver]

Actually here's a summary of the profile. Profiles are of course subjective. Sometimes it comes down to personal interpretation or even a confirmation bias about a favourite suspect. However, when we look at Lechmere, and we do know a wee bit about him. A few interesting points pop up. I think he's a surprisingly good fit for the profile.

I linked to the actual profile, not just a summary. Lets look at the sections you gave checkmarks.

Broken home. Absent or weak father and a domineering mother.

Lechmere was born in 1849 and in the 1851 census his father is absent. As a child he lived at 6 different addresses.

The profile says "he was raised by a domineering mother and a weak, passive, and/or absent father."

You have provided no evidence that his mother was domineering.
Charles Lechmere was abandoned by his father.
Charles Lechmere had a stepfather from ages 9 through 14. You have provided no evidence that his stepfather Thomas Cross was weak or passive and it seems unlikely of a police constable.
The number of places someone lives has nothing to do with whether their mother is domineering or their father is passive. And you have provided no evidence that as a child Charles Lechmere lived at 6 different addresses

We do not have enough information to know if this matches Charles Lechmere. Giving this a check mark says more about you than it says about Charles Lechmere.

Might have some sort of minor disability, a speech impediment, pock marked face from childhood illness, bad skin, poor complexion or suchlike.

We have a picture of Lechmere. A colourised photo shows what looks like a blotchy / ruddy complexion, especially on his cheeks. It looks like he has grown a beard over this.

That's a pretty inaccurate summary.

The actual profile says "He would be expected to have some type of physical abnormality." and "May have problems with speech, scarred complexion, physical illness, or injury."

Having a beard is not a physical abnormality. Your interpretation of a (probably badly) colorized photo says more about you than it says about Charles Lechmere.

This does not match Charles Lechmere.

Would have a solitary job. Would be a bit of a loner.

A carman, the modern equivalent of a lorry driver, was a solitary job. He was out on his own all day doing deliveries.

That's a pretty inaccurate summary.

The actual profile says "For employment, he would seek a position where he could work alone and vicariously experience his destructive fantasies. Such employment would include work as a butcher, mortician's helper, medical examiner's helper, or hospital attendant."

Being a carman provided no opportunity to "vicariously experience his destructive fantasies".

And Victorian carman were not usually alone on their job. They typically also had a "van guard" or "van boy" to prevent pilfering while the carman delivered goods. Records of the Old Bailey are full examples.

This does not match Charles Lechmere. Giving this a check mark says more about you than it says about Charles Lechmere.

He would be employed. Saturday or Sunday would be his days off.

He was employed. Saturday was his only day off.

This applies to 99% percent of all Ripper suspects. It only eliminates clergymen and the homeless. That you would even bother to list it shows how weak your position is.

He would be in the 28 to 36 age range - a high degree of psychopathy at the crime scenes, an ability to converse with victims until they were in place, and an ability to avoid detection.

He was 38 at the time of the murders, I suspect there were attacks before the C5. The FBI profile tends towards a more mature killer. Like Lechmere.

The profile says "28 to 36 years of age". You even admit that Lechmere was older than that. Giving this a check mark says more about you than it says about Charles Lechmere.

This does not match Charles Lechmere. It's closer than many of the other points, but it still does not match.

He would be a white male.

He would be local to Whitechapel.

He lived in Whitechapel all his life. 5 different addresses.

He wouldn't look out of the ordinary.

He has an unremarkable appearance. As a carman walking to work you wouldn't take a second look at him.

Every Ripper suspect is white. Virtually all Ripper suspects were male. Virtually all Ripper suspects lived or worked in the area. Virtually all Ripper suspects did not look out of the ordinary. That you would even bother to list any of these four points shows how weak your position is.

And you're blatantly contradicting a previous statement. "As a child he lived at 6 different addresses." and "He lived in Whitechapel all his life. 5 different addresses" cannot both be true.

He wouldn't wear his usual clothes. He would want to project an image that he had money so victims would approach him.

An interesting one that caught my attention. Lechmere even wore his work uniform and apron to the inquest. Lechmere would be wearing his work clothes, not his day to day attire, when he killed.

Charles Lechmere was wearing his usual work clothes when he found Polly Nichols. You even admit it. And yet you still gave this a checkmark.

This does not match Charles Lechmere.

He would appear as shy, being neat and orderly in appearance.

We have a photo of Lechmere. He is neat and tidy in his dress.

If you could afford to have your picture taken, you were neat and orderly for the picture. That you would even bother to try to use this against Lechmere shows how weak your position is.

The actual profile says "He would be perceived as being quiet, a loner, shy, slightly withdrawn, obedient, and neat and orderly in appearance"

We have zero evidence whether or not Lechmere was quiet or a loner or shy or slightly withdrawn or obedient.

Time of death early morning hours.

This was noted by the profiler and commented on. Lechmere would walk to work anywhere between 03.20 and 04.00 which is the generally accepted time of several of the murders.

Suspect was able to maintain control of victims during initial blitz style attack.

He was a male of 38 with a blue collar type job. Pickford's historians say it would be a tough, physical and even messy job. Lechmere would be strong enough to subdue and control his victims.

Lechmere had an alibi for at least one of the killings. He was in the area for some other others, but so were hundreds of other men in the area. Lechmere was strong enough, but so were hundreds of other men in the area.

Giving these check marks says more about you than it says about Charles

Nose, kidney and other body parts removed post mortem. Had a rough anatomical knowledge.

Lechmere was a carman and delivered from Pickford's depot to local butchers. His job would give him rough anatomical knowledge, and he might be used to blood and guts too.

Pickford's delivered meat. Pickford's did not process meat. Working for Pickford's would not give Lechmere anatomical knowledge. The only times he might have been exposed to blood or guts on the job was if he was carrying meat and it was improperly packaged and it leaked or the packaging burst.

He would probably have been talked to by police on several occasions.

Lechmere was spoken to by police at least once. Walking through Ripper territory, night after night at the height of the killings, he would have been challenged by both policeman and the vigilance committee's. Of course his job gave him the perfect excuse.

Lechmere testified at the Inquest. There is no evidence that he was ever interrogated by the police, let alone that he was interrogated multiple times. Hundreds of men walking through the area would have been challenged by the police and members of the vigilance committees.

You define this point so broadly that it applies to every man who lived or worked in the area, including most of the suspects. That you would even bother to try to use this against Lechmere shows how weak your position is.

He would have been overlooked and missed because he did not appear odd or ghoulish. Police had a preconceived idea of what JTR looked like.

Lechmere's appearance as a carman on his way to work was perfect. It was more than perfect. Nobody would ever suspect him.

He had the sense to know where and when to attack his victims.

Lechmere knew the area like the back of his hand. He grew up there, he walked the same streets night after night. He would have the knowledge required. There would be few around who knew the back streets of Whitechapel better.

These same points apply to hundreds, if not thousands of men who lived and worked in the area. That you would even bother to try to use this against Lechmere shows how weak your position is.

After the attacks he would go somewhere where he could wash his hands and clothes.

Pickford's had a large area where the messy workmen could wash themselves and their equipment down. After arriving at work Lechmere would have ample opportunity to clean himself.

That's an inaccurate summary. The actual profile says ""Post offense behavior would include returning to an area where he could wash his hands of blood and remove his clothing."

Pickford's had an area where you could wash up after work, which would always be sweaty and often dirty. Showing up to work bespattered with blood and going to the wash up area would have been highly unusual and drawn the attention of everyone who saw him. It certainly did not provide the provacy to wash off bloodstains and change clothes in privacy.

He would not have committed suicide, and it is unlikely he would have stopped after the last murder (Kelly).

Lechmere didnt' commit suicide. And I think he killed both before and after the C5.

Wait, are you claiming Lechmere must be the Ripper because he did not commit suicide?

The actual profile says "Jake the Ripper would not have committed suicide after the last homicide. Generally, when crimes such as these cease, it is because he came close to being identified, was interviewed by the police, or was arrested for some other type of offense."

Charles Lechmere was not close to being identified as the Ripper. The Ripper killings did not end after Lechmere talked to the police. Lechmere was not arrested for another offense.

And yet you still gave this a checkmark.

He would carry a knife around. He would be slightly paranoid and have a knife in case he was attacked.

My understanding is that carmen were obliged to carry a knife with them. They had to be able to cut the horses reins in the event of an accident. When walking through the back streets of Whitechapel at night he would have been armed.

As you note, Lechmere carried a knife because it was required by his job, not becuase he was paranoid. As did every other carman. And probably the majority of men and boys who lived or worked in the area. That you would even bother to try to use this against Lechmere shows how weak your position is.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, Abby, you are correct.

Crossmere was forced to walk though a long red-light district on his way to work, or on his way home---just like many other people, including Leon Goldstein, Israel Schwartz, John Reeves, and hundreds of names we do not know.

And it is precisely this same fact that led Crossmere to find the body of Polly Nichols, which, in turn, brought him to our attention.

Doesn't that make this entire line of inquiry circular?

and how many of them were seen standing near a freshly killed victim before raising any kind of alarm?
with all due respect RJ, but the only thing I find circular are folks who have a preferred suspect and knee jerk attack all other valid suspects. Is your aversion to the likes of Hutch, koz and lech because you prefer Druitt? round and round we go.

Is lech really that bad of a suspect? really??

[etenguy]

hi eten
how can his work route being near murder scenes possibly weaken the case? put it this way-lech is walking these routes almost daily. the victims are in these vicinities also almost daily. did lech know them? did he see them? have contact with them? did they ever solicite him?
see what im getting at? what other suspect do we know for a fact has this same type of specific proximity to most of the victims? none.

Hi Abby

Only two of the murder sites are on Lechmere's supposed route to work - Nichols and Chapman. Chapman was killed while Lechmere would have been at work, the killer spent too much time at Miller's Court to be on a detour on his way to work. What did the killer do with the organs if he was on his journey to work? All areas where we can speculate but all questions which are a challenge for the Lechmere theory and questions his guilt. Then of course there are Stride and Eddowes, killed in a different area altogether. Could he have been visiting his mother? Possibly but no evidence he did.

The route that we think Lechmere took was one taken by many men going to work, so any of them could be the killer by that argument, the only thing that singles Lechmere out is that he discovered the body - not an insubstantial reason to consider him, but not a smoking gun either.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, Abby, you are correct.

Crossmere was forced to walk though a long red-light district on his way to work, or on his way home---just like many other people, including Leon Goldstein, Israel Schwartz, John Reeves, and hundreds of names we do not know.

And it is precisely this same fact that led Crossmere to find the body of Polly Nichols, which, in turn, brought him to our attention.

Doesn't that make this entire line of inquiry circular?

[Abby Normal]

Hi drstrange

This is where I sit too - can't dismiss but far from proven. If we think the canonical five were all killed by the same hand, then I think considering the circumstances around the other four murders raises questions for the Lechmere theory which, in my view, weakens the case against him.

hi eten
how can his work route being near murder scenes possibly weaken the case? put it this way-lech is walking these routes almost daily. the victims are in these vicinities also almost daily. did lech know them? did he see them? have contact with them? did they ever solicite him?
see what im getting at? what other suspect do we know for a fact has this same type of specific proximity to most of the victims? none.